[jjordan]

I don't know why everyone keeps echoing this, my experience with Deepseek-R1, from a coding perspective at least, has been underwhelming at best. Much better experience with GPT 4.1 (and even better with Claude, but that's a different price category).

[am17an]

I'm not arguing which model is better for your use-case. I'm saying in general as it's "powerful" as GPT 4.1 in a lot of benchmarks, and you can peak underneath the hood, even make it better for your said use-case

[seunosewa]

Do you mean V3? V3 is 4.1 level or above.

[Zambyte]

In my experience, all reasoning models feel (vibely) worse at structured output like code versus comparable non-reasoning models, but far better at knowledge-based answering.

[hnfong]

A lot of software (eg. ollama) has confusingly named Deepseek's distill/finetunes of other base models "DeepSeek-R1" as well. See eg. https://www.threads.com/@si.fong/post/DKSdUOHzaBB

I wonder whether you're actually running the proper DeepSeek-R1 model, or one of those lesser finetunes?

[jorvi]

This is everyone with every model.

People sang praise from the roof for Google's Gemini 2.5 models, but in many things for me they can't even beat Deepseek V3.

[CamperBob2]

What would be an example of 2.5 Pro failing against R1 (which is what you'd actually want to compare it to)?

[iJohnDoe]

I got the impression that 03-mini or 03-mini-high were meant for coding? GPT 4.1 was meant for creative writing, not coding?

[conradev]

It’s good at a lot of things:

  GPT‑4.1 scores 54.6% on SWE-bench Verified, improving by 21.4%abs over GPT‑4o and 26.6%abs over GPT‑4.5—making it a leading model for coding.

https://openai.com/index/gpt-4-1/